
C h i prr »ain y \ • Orto n Pa r Vq* 3 

Financial c^wdiTiow <>T 4Vj<c 
JDistnVt «f CoLvvJoia,. SiocacVi... 



'VC3. 



V^sliiW^to^V IS7S 





Glass V- 1 3 8 
Book ^ 35 



FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



SPEECH 



OP 



HON. NORTON P. CHIPMAN, 

OP THE DISTEICT OF COLUMBIA, 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



FEBRUARY 22, 1875. 






WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

1 8 7 5 . 



.1 



J~S~ 



SPEECH 

' OF 

HON. NORTON P. CHIPMAN, 



The House having under consideration the bill (H. B. No. 4728) for the support 
of the government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1876— 

Mr. CHIPMAN said : 

It is time, Mr. Speaker, that Congress and the country knew the 
exact condition of affairs in the District of Columbia, and appreciated 
the legal and moral obligations resting both upon the country and the 
District. I shall not probably, except in running debate, again ask 
the attention of the House upon our local needs and rights, and it 
seems not improbable that the District will never again be granted 
a hearing on this floor. I feel therefore that my duty requires me 
once more to bring the attention of the House to our wants. 

DISTRICT INDEBTEDNESS. 

There is nothing so important to us as that Congress should know 
precisely the state of the District indebtedness. I believe I can 
make this clear. 

I lay down this proposition, and believe it to be sound in law and 
maintainable before the highest judicial tribunal of the country, that 
the debt of the District of Columbia is not and cannot, upon the basis 
of past legislation and past liabilities, be greater than $10,000,000. I 
propose to prove this by incontestable evidence. 

The late District government rested on an organic act which no 
power but that of Congress could contravene. Section 14 of that 
act provided — 

That no debt by which the aggregate debt of the District shall exceed 5 per cent, 
of the assessed property of the District shall be contracted, unless the law author- 
izing the same shall at the general election have been submitted to the people and 
have received a majority of the votes cast for members of the Legislative Assem- 
bly at such election. 

When the improvement of the District was inaugurated by the 
four-million loan act of July 10, 1871, its legality was questioned, on 
the ground that it exceeded the aggregate debt allowed, and ought 
to be submitted to the people. It was submitted and ratified, and 
afterward, May 8, 1872, confirmed by act of Congress. But to relieve 
all doubt as to the meaning of the organic act, Congress provided by 
that act — 

That the debt of the District of Columbia, including the debts of the late corpo- 
ration, shall at no time exceed the sum of $10,000,000, unless an increase over said 
amount shall have been previously authorized by act of Congress. 

Here were two plain restrictions. As to the first, it is sufficient to say 



that the people never authorized any loan other than the four-rnillion 
loan ; as to the second, Congress never enlarged the maximum debt, 
nor did the Legislative Assembly ever exceed the ,$10,000,000. What- 
ever liabilities there may now exist, tbey are not the liabilities of the 
District, unless authorized by the District Legislature within their 
legal power to authorize them, or unless Congress previously enlarged 
the maximum limit. This was never done, and cannot be now done 
retroactively. 

BONDED DEBT OF THE DISTRICT. 

The bonded debt of the District authorized by the Legislative 
Assembly, (see report commissioners, page 7, Executive Document, 
part 6, second session Forty-third Congress,) is $5,524,600.00; late cor- 
poration of Georgetown, $260,189.21 ; late corporation of Washing- 
ton, $3,099,151.22; making total $6,883,940.43. 

The acts authorizing this debt may be seen by reference to commis- 
sioners' report page 271. This I assert to be the exact funded legal debt 
of the District of Columbia. (Eeport, pages 7, 131, 272.) 

SEWER TAX. 

P I What further debt or liability is chargeable to the District of Colum- 
bia ? It may be said that the act of June 26, 1873, "creating drain- 
age and sewerage sections," under which $2,120,000 of sewer certifi- 
cates were authorized and issued by the board of public works, make 
a liability of the District. Of these there were redeemed by the Dis- 
trict, through the collector of taxes and the sinking-fund commissioners, 
$1,056,850, which the board of audit hold cannot be funded and can- 
not be restored to the District. There have been filed and are out- 
standing, including interest, $1,112,942.29. This might be added to 
our funded debt and still be within the ten million limitation, but it 
was held by eminent counsel as not a debt of the District, but was a 
lien on property, against which the holder could proceed ; besides, our 
people always contended that the act was illegal, and Congress so 
determined and repealed it by act of June 20, 1874. 

ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATES. 

On same day, June 26, 1873, the Legislative Assembly authorized 
the board of public works to issue certificates of indebtedness for 
work done and "chargeable to private property benefited thereby." 
Under this act $2,000,000 were issued. It was objected by citizens to 
this as to the former act that it was not within the legal power of 
the Legislative Assembly, as it increased the debt beyond the limit. 
But learned counsel advised that it was competent for the Legislative 
Assembly to do this, as it did not create a District liability, the assess- 
ments being pledged to pay the certificates. In fact, the assessments 
were largely in excess of the $2,000,000, and are rapidly paying the 
certificates, and will leave an excess to go toward paying the general 
debt of $1,614,054.37. I cannot stop to read the opinion given as to 
these two acts ; it was by Messrs. Caleb dishing, Jeremiah S. Black, 
W. E. Chandler, and Walter S. Cox, and will be found at length in 
Report No. 453, Senate, volume 1, first session Forty-third Congress, 
page 468. These are substantially all the liabilities incurred by the 
board of public works with which the District of Columbia was by 
any pretense legally connected, except such as I will now notice. As 
to the sewer tax, it was declared illegal by repealing the act ; as to 
the assessment certificates, there are ample funds to pay them from 
that special fund, and this leaves our debt as I have stated it, 
$8,883,940.43. 

OTHER DISTRICT LIABILITIES. 

Among the claims which the board of audit was directed to audit 



o 

by act of June 20, 1374, were claims evidenced by the certificate of 
the auditor and certified by the comptroller of the District. These only 
■amounted to $1,897.06. Still another class were claims of class five, 
arising under oral or written contracts made by or on behalf of the 
District of Columbia. These claims amount to $482,569.70, of which 
there have beeji allowed $82,547.43; disallowed, $96,319. There will 
probably be in all allowed about $250,000. Another class, (seventh,)' 
damages to real estate, which, growing out of the action of the board, 
I will group in the list of District liabilities, of which there are in all 
$468,686.07 ; allowed, $84,689.57. There may be still further allowed 
the balance, $383,996.50. Another class, (eighth,) for sewer tax paid 
by owners of property, amounts to $557,688.52. But this was under 
the act of the Legislative Assembly afterward repealed by Congress, 
and is no part of the debt of the District. 

Excluding the illegal sewer tax and the certificates of assessment, 
which are no part of the District debt, and adding all the other 
claims, many of which were contracted by the board of public works 
"upon doubtful legislative authority, and we have to be added to the 
funded debt — 

-Claims class three $1, 897 06 

Claims class five 250, 000 00 

•Claims class seven 468, 686 07 

Add f unded debt 8, 883, 943 43 

Total funded and floating debt of the District of Coltunbia 9,604,526 56 

The actual legal debt of the District ends here. Any other state- 
ment of it is forced and unwarranted. 

. CERTIFICATE OP ASSESSMENT INDEBTEDNESS. 

But it is urged that as the Legislative Assembly authorized the 
certificates of assessment (commonly called greenbacks) the Dis- 
trict must provide for them. Grant this. The provision and the 
only necessary provision is already made for their payment. The 
receipts from special assessments are pledged to pay them. This 
account will stand thus : 

Due from private property special assessments f 3, 176, 454 37 

Outstanding certificates of assessment (greenbacks) 1, 552, 400 00 

Balance due the District on account of special assessments 1, 624, 054 37 

Add other assets — Chesapeake and Ohio Canal bonds 75, 000 00 

"Washington and Alexandria Eailroad bonds 59, 000 00 

~We> have total assets of District to apply to debt 1, 758, 054 37 

SEWER-TAX INDEBTEDNESS. 

It is also urged that because our Legislature authorized the sewer- 

"tax bonds to issue, therefore the District must provide for them. It 

would seem idle to contest this, for Congress declared the act illegal, 

and repealed it. But it may be added, and still our assets w r ill pay 

it and leave a small balance. Thus : 

Sewer-tax certificates, including interest (class one) $1, 112, 942 29 

Sewer tax paid by property-owners (class seven) 557, 686 52 

Total 1,670,628 81 

Assets already shown 1,758,054 37 

Balance to be applied to our funded debt 77, 425 56 

I have charged the District with everything which by any pretense 
is justly or in my opinion legally chargeable to it ; and allowing 
credit for assets, we have the debt about nine and a half millions. 

In this I include, but do not concede, nearly $2,000,000 sewer tax, 
which has no warrant of law and which I do not believe it competent 



6 

for Congress to compel the people to pay ; and I have included the- 
certificates of assessment, which are chargeable to and payable by 
individual property-holders. 

LIABILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES. 

I come now to the more important question who are liable for the 
remaining indebtedness, for we have reached but a part. I claim 
that the United States are legally and morally liable. Who created 
these liabilities? The board of public works. Under what author- 
ity? Let us see. 

I have shown negatively that they derived no authority from the- 
District Legislature or the people ; and as to the District, any liability 
created without such authority is void. 

After the board had exhausted the $4,000,000 loan, the proceeds of 
special assessments, and temporary aid given by the Legislative- 
Assembly, they still found themselves in the presence of an unsolved 
problem of improvements. They obtained authority from the Legis- 
lative Assembly, by acts of August 10, 1871, and May 23, 1873, to 
assess one-third of the cost of improvements against private property 
benefited as provided by the organic act ; but the Legislature could 
not and did not attempt to provide for the other two-thirds. Our 
general fund was exhausted and our limit of $10,000,000 debt reached 
and our taxes up to the maximum of 2 per cent., which was barely, 
sufficient to pay the current expenses of government and the interest 
on our debt. The Legislature, therefore, could not if they would 
incur a liability for this two-thirds cost. 

Here is the dividing line between these liabilities. The Legisla- 
ture had started this general fund from which the two-thirds of the 
cost should be paid by the $4,000,000 loan act, but they provided dis- 
tinctly (section 2, act July 10, 1871,) " that in no case shall the boards 
of public works enter into any contract for any work which shall 
exceed the estimate " on which the loan act was based. Besides the 
organic act, section 37 stood as a protection to the District, and still, 
stands : 

The said board shall have no power to make contracts to bind said District to the 
payment of any sums of money, except in pursuance of appropriation made by law,.. 
and not until such appropriations shall have been made. 

The act of Congress of May 8, 1871, said : 

The debt of the District of Columbia * * shall at no time exceed the sum of 
$10,000,000, unless an increase * * shall have been previously authorized by act 
of Congress. 

And the same act also said : 

The aggregate amount of taxes in any one year, excepting such additional assess- 
ments as may be made for improvements specially authorized by law, shall not 
exceed 2 per cent, on the assessed cash valuation of property in said city. 

The bars were put up in every direction, and they have never been 
taken down so far as the District is concerned. 

The District stands upon the statute law, and disclaims all liability- 
in violation of it. (See report of Joint Investigating Committee^ 
page 7.) 

Now, who were this board ? They were the agents of the United 
States ; they were paid by them ; appointed by them ; to them they 
reported, and to them alone were they answerable. Who can gainsay 
this? 

The organic act, section 37, gave to this board entire control of all 
the streets, avenues, and alleys in the District. They were Govern- 
ment officers in every sense, and have been so held to be by the courts. 
This is important, and I do not want any doubt indulged as to my 



■proposition. The supreme court of this District decided, after a full 
-argument, this exact question in Barnes vs. The United States, and 
other cases. 

I read enough to show the decision : 

Barnes sued the District of Columbia for damages arising from an 
injury bj r falling down an embankment in one of the streets exca- 
vated by the board of public works. In commenting upon the con- 
trol over the streets given by the organic act to the board of public 
works, the court say : 

After entire control of any subject or matter is given to one person or to a board, 
'what kind of control can be implied, by way of reversion or remainder in the Dis- 
trict, to some otber person or body. 

It is said the board of public works is a constituent part of the District govern- 
ment as last organized; and therefore, on any omission of duty by any constituent 
.part of such government, whereby damage has been occasioned to third persons, 
an action may be maintained by' such persons against the District government. 
This position is rather specious than sound. 

Congress saw fit to create the board of public works as well as the board of health 
in the same act; but this does not satisfy the separate duties or functions of each. 
The truth is, each is a distinct part of the agency of the United States for the 
government of the District, and duties and responsibilities must be determined 
■accordingly. 

The members of the board of public works are appointed by the President, con- 
firmed by the Senate, paid by the United States ; and being thus appointed, to them 
is committed the control and repair of the streets. It would be as much a trespass 
to interfere with their prescribed duties as with those of any other agents of the 

United States. 

******* 

But it is proposed to hold this government responsible for the negligence of the 
board of public works created by Congress, * * * over which the people of this 
District have no more control than the people of a neighboring State. This is run- 
-ning the doctrine of imputed sins so far into the ground that I am unwilling to 
follow it." — Opinion of Mr. Justice Olin. 

Here is the precise question decided. How can an action be main- 
tained against this District for a liability created by your agents over 
whom we had no more control than the people of the State of Maryland 
had ? 
• The District Legislature could aid the board by appropriations, but 
it could in no way interfere with its control of the streets ; it could 
create a debt or make appropriations within certain limits to provide 
funds for this board, but it could not prevent the board from paving 
all the streets with most costly material or do any other thing. Con- 
gress alone could control this. Where, then, did authority come from, 
and to whom did the board look in improving streets with authority 
only to levy tax for one-third the cost upon the property benefited ? 
I will let the joint investigating committee of last Congress answer. 
They say : 

Tour committee are unable to see but one way in which the board could have ex- 
pected, to pay this large debt: that is by receiving aid from Congress, as it must 
have occurred to them that the resources of the District could not be taxed suffi- 
ciently to pay them. Page 14. 

It is not my duty to defend the board or to state their theory of 
action; they have done their work, and are content to abide the ver- 
dict of history as to its wisdom and its value. I am speaking for the 
people of the District, to show that they did not do this thing. They 
did their share and will pay their share, but they will not and cannot 
do more. 

But did this board reckon without its host ? Had they a right to 
look to Congress ? Was their action unprecedented ? 

Upon this point I cite from the opinion of Hon. C. dishing, pages 



475, 476 of report of Joint Investigating Committee. It states the- 
whole case. I hope members will read it entire. I can only summa- 
rize it. 

The question was submitted to Mr. Cushing whether the board 
could go on increasing liabilities in the face of the act of January 8, 
1873, prohibiting it unless appropriations were previously made. 

Mr. Cushing held that the act of March 3, 1873, repealed this re- 
striction, and left the matter to come up as deficiencies. He showed 
how impossible it would be for the board to delay work devolved 
u pon them by paving half a street and leaving the other half unpaved,. 
or half laying a sewer, and the like. He discussed the double relation 
of agent of the District and agent of the United States conferred upon 
th® board, and advised that it was competent for it to do the very 
tbAng which ultimately brought disaster and created the very liabili- 
ties I now insist are not ours, but yours. I refer to this to show that 
this board were not acting beyond the color of authority. 

I need not remind the House that Mr. Cushing enjoys the reputation 
of both a statesman and good lawyer. Few men in this country 
have had so wide a range of experience in public affairs. He states 
the theory on which the board acted. Whether it is sound in law or 
not is your affair, not mine. The action of Congress would indicate 
that it is sound. Congress continued to appropriate money from time 
to time, and when the crash came and the board was destroyed, Con- 
gress appropriated over a million more, and provided for funding all 
the liabilities of the District and the board. 

In this act of June 20, 1874, I find legislative interpretation, as I 
claim, of my p roposition. The act makes a distinction between Dis- 
trict debt and board of public works liabilities. The theory of the- 
report of the committee and the bill is that the United States are 
liable, and a guarantee is pledged to pay the bonds. The committee 
avoid, and the act avoids, deciding this question ; but there can be no 
doubt of the meaning of both. You may call them District of Colum- 
bia bonds or Alaska bonds; they remain the bonds of the United 
States, given to discharge a liability of the United States, a liability 
which had no sanction of our Legislative Assembly, and cannot now 
be declared our obligations without ' violating every congressional 
safeguard thrown around our property and our citizens. 

In this matter the board of public works stood in the exact relation 
that General Babcock or the Supervising Architect, Mr. Mnllett, stood 
in conducting recent public work. Congress could with the same 
legal right impose a tax on our property to pay one of Mr. Mullett's 
deficiencies or General Babcock's excess of expenditures on a public 
square, if he ever makes any, as to tax us for "work done around the 
public buildings and squares by the board of public works without 
our authority. The acts of the board as the agents of the United 
States were public acts, and the United States cannot escape the con- 
sequences. How can we be taxed directly, to the exclusion of all the 
rest of the United States, to pay the debt of the United States ? 

I submit that it cannot be done, and this opinion is the law laid 
down by your Judiciary Committee at the last session in the report 
submitted by Judge Poland, (.see report No. (327, second session 
Forty-third Congress,) and is, as I understand it, the exact theory 
of the report and bill submitted by the joint committee appointed 
under the act of June 20, 1874. (See report No. 479, second session 
Forty-third Congress.) 

But, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to protract the argument on this 
point. I think it established. "We come to the practical question.. 



9 

what is to be done about it ? How much of this liability must 
the United States assume ? I say the United States should at least 
assume the entire 3.65 loan, as a matter of law, of equity, and of 
necessity. These views I will notice briefly. I have already noticed 
the legal argument. 

THE LAW OF, THE CASE, 

First. Of the classes of claims authorized by the act of June 20 
to be funded, the act expressedly designates as liabilities of the board 
the first, second, fourth, sixtb, and eighth classes. These include the 
sewer tax, which Congress declared illegal, aud other claims that find 
no warrant of authority in any legislative enactment of the District. 
They are : 
Tlrst class, claims against the board of public worts, evidenced by 

sewer certificates, under act of Legislature, afterward repealed by 

Congress $1,112,942 29 

Second class, claims against tbe board of public works, evidenced by 

certificate of their auditor 4, 484, 144 52 

Fourth class, claims for which no evidence of indebtedness has been 

issued, arising out of contracts, written or oral, of board of public 

woiks .7. 2,896,537 78 

Sixth class, claims for private property taken by board of pnblie 

works from the streets and alleys .'. 463, 094 85 

Eighth class, claims for sewer tax paid by persons; same as class first 557, 688 52 

9, 514, 407 96 
It is not possible to make an exact division of the District and Gov- 
ernment liabilities ; but no just division of the expenditures of the 
last three years, upon the theory I have advanced of the Government 
liability for all acts of the board not authorized by the Legislative 
Assembly can be made which will not require the United States to 
pay at least $10,000,000. 

j>«This may not be an agreeable view to Congress, but it is the true 
view, and must betaken sooner or later. It is your work ; your agents 
did it ; you stood by and encouraged it. It will not do to turn now 
and cast the burden upon the oppressed people of this District. 

THE EQUITY OF THE CASE. 

Second. As a matter of equity I say the United States should not only 
assume these 3.65 bonds, but should pay one-half of the expenses of this 
District since the capital was located here. There never has been a 
time since the permanent establishment of the capital that any fair 
apportionment of local expenses would not require the United States 
to pay at least one-half. 

In a speech last winter (Congressional Record, Appendix p. 113) I 
endeavored to carefully define the legal and equitable relations of the 
District with the National Government, and to trace the history of both 
in this regard. I think I demonstrated that the United States should 
pay at least one-half of the cost of the local government, and I based 
that belief on principle and upon recognized precedent. I cannot 
now repeat the argument, but I believe a careful perusal of it and of 
the facts upon which it rests will convince any unprejudiced mind. 

I cite the argument there elaborated, and particularly the following : 

Eeport of Senator Southard, February 2, 1835, to the Senate. 

Eeport of Senator Brown, May 15, 1858, to the Senate. 

Report of the House Committee on the District of Columbia, No. 
72, second session Forty-second Congress, May 13, 1872. 

Report of Judiciary Committee of the House, No. 627, first session 
Forty-third Congress, 1874. 

Report of the Joint Committee of Senate and House, No. 479, second 
session Forty-third Congress, December 7, 1874. 
2C 



10 

This proposition assumed, what is the state of the account ? I 
could present an approximate table showing within a hundred thou- 
sand dollars the amount due from the United States. It would show 
the expenditures of all kinds made by local and General Govern- 
ment for purposes which may be regarded on common account. It 
would bring the United States in debt to the District of Columbia 
not far from $15,000,000. 

But I will not pursue this in detail. We have got to that point in 
the District where Congress must repudiate a part of the debt or as- 
sume it, for we cannot pay it; and Congress must make up its mind 
further to provide for a large -proportion of the cost of local govern- 
ment, for we cannot pay it all ; and in this view it may not be mate- 
rial to strike a balance-sheet. You can get a certain revenue from our 
property, but it is limited and the balance must come from the 
Treasury. 

I state this frankly, and to those who take a proper pride in the 
capital and are disposed to accept the duty devolved upon you by the 
Constitution, it cannot be disagreeable. In any event it is best for 
us all that the exact truth be known. 

THE NECESSITY OF THE CASE. 

This leads me to present, finally, the argument of necessity. There 
is a point beyond which a people sometimes cannot go and cannot be 
driven. The citizens of this District have arrived at that point now. 
They can and will pay a reasonable tax upon their property ; but 
they cannot and will not do more. You may seize and confiscate, or 
you may become possessed of their property by sale under the mar- 
shal's hammer ; but you. cannot enforce a tax large enough to support 
this District government in all its branches and provide for the pay- 
ment of all the liabilities existing here. 

If our property were assessed to-day, excluding the usual exempt 
class, the cash value would not reach $75,000,000. It has been inflated 
to ninety odd millions; but times are changed; real property is 
greatly depressed, and has scarcely any sale. 

Aside from real estate we have but little property or business from 
which revenue can be derived, and, compared withmost other cities, 
really nothing. All attempts heretofore to a'ssess personal estate have 
been delusive and disappointing, and have scarcely paid the cost of 
collection. 

Assuming that our real property couldbejustlyassessedto $90,000,000, 
we have a basis of calculation which is the most favorable. 

The commissioners for the District estimate the necessary expenses for 
the ensuing year, (see Miscellaneous Documents, No. 40, House of Rep- 
resentatives, second session Forty-third Congress,) $2,755,800. This 
is exclusive of the interest on the 3.65 bonds and exclusive of a sink- 
ing fund to retire the whole debt. Add these two items, and we have 
(estimated) $750,000; total revenue required, $3,505,800. 

To raise this by tax upon our property would require us to pay four 
dollars on every hundred, and this cannot be paid by our people 
under the circumstances. 

The extraordinary tax of 3 per cent, levied by act of June 20, 
1874, when the commissioners made their report to Congress, (page 
93,) was delinquent to the amount of $1, 607, 216 04 

And on the prior levy of 2 per cent, under the Legislature (esti- 
mated) 500,000 00 

On other levies 150, 000 00 

Making a total of delinquent tax 2,257,216 04 



11 

To this must be added special taxes against private property, still 
uncollected 3,176,454 37 



"Which makes still to he paid by our citizens, and which hangs over 
all the property, the sum of 5, 433, 670 41 

The most of this must be provided for while we are paying our next 
year's tax, whicji, I submit, it is not possible for us to do. 

But in this connection it is due our citizens that Congress should 
know what extraordinary sums have been paid by them in furtherance 
of improvements and to maintain our local government in the past 
three years. We have actually paid in money since the 1st of June, 
1871, when the new government began, exclusive of the debt bonded 
and floating, over $5,000,000 ; which, added to the delinquent tax 
and special assessments unpaid, $5,433,670.41, makes the total of 
$10,433,670.41 ; add to this the amount of the liabilities funded, float- 
ing, and unpaid, $18,427,360.24, and we have $28,861,030.15, which is 
equal to nearly one-third of the entire taxable real estate of the Dis- 
trict. 

May I not conclude the argument here? Can any member look 
this subject squarely in the face and vote to cast upon this people the 
entire burden of government in this District ? If there is, I warn 
him to provide liberally for the officers of the law, for upon them will 
devolve the disagreeable duty of dispossessing half the resident popu- 
lation of this capital. In this course of cruelty there is but one measure 
of refinement necessary. Make the non-payment of tax cause for 
imprisonment ; we will at least secure shelter at public expense. 

A GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY SOMEWHERE. 

I have pursued this question, Mr. Speaker, as far as I propose to do. 
I know there are those on this floor who assert that the United States 
should do nothing more toward sustaining local government here . 
than in any other city of the Union ; who say you should do nothing 
to support the schools, when one-third of the pupils are children of 
non-residents, who are the public servants of the United States and 
obliged to live here, but contribute little or nothing to taxes ; who 
say you should not help the fire department, when here the United 
States have more valuable treasures exposed in inflammable build- 
ings than the whole population besides ; who say that the police de- 
partment should not be aided, when your own lives and property, and 
that of thousands compelled to come here and transact business de- 
pend on the efficiency of this corps ; who say that the health depart- 
ment should not be assisted, when but for its efficient work of last 
year and the help you gave Congress would have been driven out 
of the capital to escape the scourge of small-pox ; who say that 
you should not pay anything toward lighting the streets, when it 
would be next to impossible to transact the public business and 
would be unsafe to venture beyond your houses but for this public 
convenience ; who say you should not help pave, sewer, and other- 
wise improve and adorn the city, when you have laid off a capital 
here upon a plan which implied and brought with it the pledge that 
you would do these things at your own expense, and unless you do 
them they must be undone and your city cease to be possible as your 
capital. It is to those, and such as those, who believe all these mon- 
strous errors, that I present the District of Columbia naked and pros- 
trate and almost hopeless. 

I have laid our burden at your feet and I declare to you, not de- 
fiantly, but earnestly, that we will not, because we cannot, take it up 
unless you assist us. I have striven for four years to impress upon 



12 

Congress the necessity for some intelligent and declared purpose to- 
ward this District, and my only hope now is that hetween the des- 
potism set up last session and the anarchy we seem drifting to, Con- 
gress will soon wake up to the fact that here at the nation's cen- 
ter ; here where we should have a model government ; here where hy 
common consent and with a common pride a generous and liberal 
policy should govern; here of all the broad domain of the United 
States is the most vacillating, the most uncertain, the mosb ignorant, 
and the most unpatriotic course pursued. 

I have not uttered since I have had the honor of being among you 
one word of partisan appeal, for I have felt that while I was sent 
here upon the nomination of one of the great parties of the country, 
it was to serve interests purely local and in behalf of which there 
should be no party dispute ; but it is a disappointing reflection that 
that party with which most of my constituents are in sympathy, 
however much it may have done to beautify this city, has destroyed 
the only government we had and has not given ug a better one ; that 
while in spasms of good feeling it has appropriated generously, it 
has, under cover of this duty performed, wholly overlooked the greater 
one of providing here a wise, an efficient, a model government. There 
is a grave responsibility somewhere, and I hope there may yet be 
patriotism and national pride enough to perform it. 

While you are agonizing over States which are provided by the 
Constitution with machinery to operate themselves, I beg of you not 
to forget the heart of the nation, that cannot even pulsate without 
you will let it. I beg of you do not longer draggle this " child of the 
Union" at the heels of Neglect $1 beg of you do not forget that this 
entire community, as large as some of your States, is practically ex- 
isting under a despotism, which, if it chose to avail itself of the power 
you have given it and were not composed of men every way to be 
trusted, as our present commissioners can be, might oppress this peo- 
ple to a point that would bring personal disgrace upon every one of 
you and indelibly tarnish the very name of American liberty. 

I declare my deliberate opinion to be that there is not within the 
range of my knowledge of Christian nations a spot so badly gov- 
erned as this one, where Congress alone has absolute and exclusive 
legislative control. Taking the government of the District of Colum- 
bia as an example of the wisdom of Congress, this nation could not 
exist twenty-four hours, if it were not for the reserved rights of the 
States which secure to them good government'. / 

It is impossible, Mr. Speaker, for me to say more or do more than I 
have done to arouse Congress to a sense of duty toward the capital of 
this great nation. In common with the citizens of this District, I 
have urged the local needs ; I have urged the national view ; I 
have worked in season and out of season, and must we now only sit 
down in utter despair and wait the final consummation of our ruin ? 



